Classified Pentagon
Document
New Undeclared Arms Race:
America's Agenda for Global Military Domination
By
Michel Chossudovsky
www.globalresearch.ca
The
Pentagon has released the summary of a top secret Pentagon document, which
sketches America's agenda for global military domination.
This
redirection of America's military strategy seems to have passed virtually
unnoticed. With the exception of The Wall Street Journal (see below in
annex), not a word has been mentioned in the US media.
There
has been no press coverage concerning this mysterious military blueprint.
The latter outlines, according to the Wall Street Journal, America's
global military design which consists in "enhancing U.S. influence around
the world", through increased troop deployments and a massive buildup of
America's advanced weapons systems.
While
the document follows in the footsteps of the administration's "preemptive"
war doctrine as detailed by the Neocons' Project of the New American
Century (PNAC), it goes much further in setting the contours of
Washington's global military agenda.
It calls
for a more "proactive" approach to warfare, beyond the weaker notion of "preemptive"
and defensive actions, where military operations are launched against a
"declared enemy" with a view to "preserving the peace" and "defending
America".
The
document explicitly acknowledges America's global military mandate, beyond
regional war theaters. This mandate also includes military operations
directed against countries, which are not hostile to America, but which
are considered strategic from the point of view of US interests.
From a
broad military and foreign policy perspective, the March 2005 Pentagon
document constitutes an imperial design, which supports US corporate
interests Worldwide.
"At its
heart, the document is driven by the belief that the U.S. is engaged in a
continuous global struggle that extends far beyond specific battlegrounds,
such as Iraq and Afghanistan. The vision is for a military that is far
more proactive, focused on changing the world instead of just responding
to conflicts such as a North Korean attack on South Korea, and assuming
greater prominence in countries in which the U.S. isn't at war. (WSJ, 11
March 2005)
The
document suggests that its objective also consists in "offensive" rather
than run of the mill "preemptive" operations. There is, in this regard, a
subtle nuance in relation to earlier post-911 national security
statements:
"[The
document presents] 'four core' problems, none of them involving
traditional military confrontations. The services are told to develop
forces that can: build partnerships with failing states to defeat internal
terrorist threats; defend the homeland, including offensive strikes
against terrorist groups planning attacks; influence the choices of
countries at a strategic crossroads, such as China and Russia; and prevent
the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by hostile states and
terrorist groups." (Ibid)
The
emphasis is no longer solely on waging major theater wars as outlined in
the PNAC's
Rebuilding America's Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New
Century" , the March 2005 military blueprint points to shifts in
weapons systems as well as the need for a global deployment of US forces
in acts of Worldwide military policing and intervention. The PNAC in its
September 2000 Report had described these non-theater military
operations as "constabulary functions":
The
Pentagon must retain forces to preserve the current peace in ways that
fall short of conduction major theater campaigns. ... These duties are
today’s most frequent missions, requiring forces configured for combat but
capable of long-term, independent constabulary operations." (PNAC,
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf , p.
18)
Recruitment
of Troops to Police the Empire
The
underlying emphasis is on the development and recruitment of specialized
military manpower required to control and pacify indigenous forces and
factions in different regions of the World:
"the
classified guidance urges the military to come up with less doctrinaire
solutions that include sending in smaller teams of culturally savvy
soldiers to train and mentor indigenous forces." (Ibid)
The
classified document points to the need for a massive recruitment and
training of troops. These troops, including new contingents of special
forces, green berets and other specialized military personnel, would be
involved, around the World, in acts of military policing:
"Mr.
Rumsfeld's approach likely will trigger major shifts in the weapons
systems that the Pentagon buys, and even more fundamental changes in the
training and deployment of U.S. troops throughout the world, said defense
officials who have played a role in crafting the document or are involved
in the review.
The U.S.
would seek to deploy these troops far earlier in a looming conflict than
they traditionally have been to help a tottering government's armed forces
confront guerrillas before an insurgency is able to take root and build
popular support. Officials said the plan envisions many such teams
operating around the world.
US
military involvement is not limited to the Middle East. The sending in of
special forces in military policing operations, under the disguise of
peace-keeping and training, is contemplated in all major regions of the
World. A large part of these activities, however, will most probably be
carried out by private mercenary companies on contract to the Pentagon,
NATO or the United Nations. The military manpower requirements as well as
the equipment are specialized. The policing will not be conducted by
regular army units as in a theater war:
"the new
plan envisions more active U.S. involvement, resembling recent military
aid missions to places like Niger and Chad, where the U.S. is dispatching
teams of ground troops to train local militaries in basic
counterinsurgency tactics. Future training missions, however, would likely
be conducted on a much broader scale, one defense official said.
Of the
military's services, the Marines Corps right now is moving fastest to fill
this gap and is looking at shifting some resources away from traditional
amphibious-assault missions to new units designed specifically to work
with foreign forces. To support these troops, military officials are
looking at everything from acquiring cheap aerial surveillance systems to
flying gunships that can be used in messy urban fights to come to the aid
of ground troops. One "dream capability" might be an unmanned AC-130
gunship that could circle an area at relatively low altitude until it is
needed, then swoop in to lay down a withering line of fire, said a defense
official." (Ibid)
New Post
Cold War Enemies
While
the "war on terrorism" and the containment of "rogue states" still
constitute the official justification and driving force, China and Russia
are explicitly identified in the classified March document as potential
enemies.
"... the
U.S. military ... is seeking to dissuade rising powers, such as China,
from challenging U.S. military dominance. Although weapons systems
designed to fight guerrillas tend to be fairly cheap and low-tech, the
review makes clear that to dissuade those countries from trying to
compete, the U.S. military must retain its dominance in key high-tech
areas, such as stealth technology, precision weaponry and manned and
unmanned surveillance systems." (Ibid)
While
the European Union is not mentioned, the stated objective is to shunt the
development of all potential military rivals.
"Trying to
Run with the Big Dog"
How does
Washington intend to reach its goal of global military hegemony?
Essentially through the continued development of the US weapons industry,
requiring a massive shift out of the production of civilian goods and
services. In other words, the ongoing increase in defense spending feeds
this new undeclared arms race, with vast amounts of public money channeled
to America's major weapons producers.
The
stated objective is to make the process of developing advanced weapons
systems "so expensive", that no other power on earth will able to compete
or challenge "the Big Dog", without jeopardizing its civilian economy:
"[A]t
the core of this strategy is the belief that the US must maintain such a
large lead in crucial technologies that growing powers will conclude that
it is too expensive for these countries to even think about trying to
run with the big dog. They will realize that it is not worth
sacrificing their economic growth, said one defense consultant who was
hired to draft sections of the document. " (Ibid, emphasis added)
Undeclared
Arms Race between Europe and America
This new
undeclared arms race is with the so-called "growing powers".
While
China and Russia are mentioned as a potential threat, America's
(unofficial) rivals also include France, Germany and Japan. The recognized
partners of the US --in the context of the Anglo-American axis-- are
Britain, Australia and Canada, not to mention Israel (unofficially).
In this
context, there are at present two dominant Western military axes: the
Anglo-American axis and the competing Franco-German alliance. The European
military project, largely dominated by France and Germany, will inevitably
undermine NATO. Britain (through British Aerospace Systems Corporation)
is firmly integrated into the US system of defense procurement in
partnership with America's big five weapons producers.
Needless
to say, this new arms race is firmly embedded in the European project,
which envisages under EU auspices, a massive redirection of State
financial resources towards military expenditure. Moreover, the EU
monetary system establishing a global currency which challenges the
hegemony of the US dollar is intimately related to the development of an
integrated EU defense force outside of NATO.
Under
the European constitution, there will be a unified European foreign policy
position which will include a common defense component. It is understood,
although never seriously debated in public, that the proposed European
Defense Force is intended to challenge America's supremacy in military
affairs:
"under
such a regime, trans-Atlantic relations will be dealt a fatal blow."
(according to Martin Callanan, British Conservative member of the European
Parliament, Washington times, 5 March 2005).
Ironically, this European military project, while encouraging an
undeclared US-EU arms race, is not incompatible with continued US-EU
cooperation in military affairs. The underlying objective for Europe is
that EU corporate interests are protected and that European contractors
are able to effectively cash in and "share the spoils" of the US-led wars
in the Middle East and elsewhere. In other words, by challenging the Big
Dog from a position of strength, the EU seeks to retain its role as "a
partner" of America in its various military ventures.
There is
a presumption, particularly in France, that the only way to build good
relations with Washington, is to emulate the American Military Project,--
i.e. by adopting a similar strategy of beefing up Europe's advanced
weapons systems.
In other
words, what we are dealing with is a fragile love-hate relationship
between Old Europe and America, in defense systems, the oil industry as
well as in the upper spheres of banking, finance and currency markets. The
important issue is how this fragile geopolitical relationship will evolve
in terms of coalitions and alliances in the years to come. France and
Germany have military cooperation agreements with both Russia and China.
European Defense companies are supplying China with sophisticated
weaponry. Ultimately, Europe is viewed as an encroachment by the US, and
military conflict between competing Western superpowers cannot be ruled
out. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, The Anglo-American
Axis,
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303B.html )
From
skepticism concerning Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to
outright condemnation, in the months leading up to the March 2003
invasion, Old Europe (in the wake of the invasion) has broadly accepted
the legitimacy of the US military occupation of Iraq, despite the killings
of civilians, not to mention the Bush administration's policy guidelines
on torture and political assassinations.
In a
cruel irony, the new US-EU arms race has become the chosen avenue of the
European Union, to foster "friendly relations" with the American
superpower. Rather than opposing the US, Europe has embraced "the war on
terrorism". It is actively collaborating with the US in the arrest of
presumed terrorists. Several EU countries have established Big Brother
anti-terrorist laws, which constitute a European "copy and paste" version
of the US Homeland Security legislation.
European
public opinion is now galvanized into supporting the "war on terrorism",
which broadly benefits the European military industrial complex and the
oil companies. In turn, the "war on terrorism" also provides a shaky
legitimacy to the EU security agenda under the European Constitution. The
latter is increasingly viewed with disbelief, as a pretext to implement
police-state measures, while also dismantling labor legislation and the
European welfare state.
In turn,
the European media has also become a partner in the disinformation
campaign. The "outside enemy" presented ad nauseam on network TV, on both
sides of the Atlantic, is Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. In
other words, the propaganda campaign serves to usefully camouflage the
ongoing militarisation of civilian institutions, which is occurring
simultaneously in Europe and America.
Guns and
Butter: The Demise of the Civilian Economy
The
proposed EU constitution requires a massive expansion of military spending
in all member countries to the obvious detriment of the civilian economy.
The
European Union's 3% limit on annual budget deficits implies that the
expansion in military expenditure will be accompanied by a massive
curtailment of all categories of civilian expenditure, including social
services, public infrastructure, not to mention government support to
agriculture and industry. In this regard, "the war on terrorism" serves
--in the context of the neoliberal reforms-- as a pretext. It builds
public acceptance for the imposition of austerity measures affecting
civilian programs, on the grounds that money is needed to enhance national
security and homeland defense.
The
growth of military spending in Europe is directly related to the US
military buildup. The more America spends on defense, the more Europe
will want to spend on developing its own European Defense Force. "Keeping
up with the Jones", all of which is for a good and worthy, cause, namely
fighting "Islamic terrorists" and defending the homeland.
EU
enlargement is directly linked to the development and financing of the
European weapons industry. The dominant European powers desperately need
the contributions of the ten new EU members to finance the EU's military
buildup. In this regard, the European Constitution requires "the adoption
of a security strategy for Europe, accompanied by financial commitments on
military spending." (European Report, 3 July 2003). In other words, under
the European Constitution, EU enlargement tends to weaken the Atlantic
military alliance (NATO).
The
backlash on employment and social programs is the inevitable byproduct of
both the American and European military projects, which channel vast
amounts of State financial resources towards the war economy, at the
expense of the civilian sectors.
The
result are plant closures and bankruptcies in the civilian economy and a
rising tide of poverty and unemployment throughout the Western World.
Moreover, contrary to the 1930s, the dynamic development of the weapons
industry creates very few jobs.
Meanwhile, as the Western war economy flourishes, the relocation of the
production of civilian manufactured goods to Third World countries has
increased in recent years at an dramatic pace. China, which constitutes by
far the largest producer of civilian manufactured goods, increased its
textile exports to the US by 80.2 percent in 2004, leading to a wave of
plant closures and job losses (WSJ, 11 March 2005)
The
global economy is characterized by a bipolar relationship. The rich
Western countries produce weapons of mass destruction, whereas poor
countries produce manufactured consumer goods. In a twisted logic, the
rich countries use their advanced weapons systems to threaten or wage war
on the poor developing countries, which supply Western markets with large
amounts of consumer goods produced in cheap labor assembly plants.
America,
in particular, has relied on this cheap supply of consumer goods to close
down a large share of its manufacturing sector, while at the same time
redirecting resources away from the civilian economy into the production
of weapons of mass destruction. And the latter, in a bitter irony, are
slated to be used against the country which supplies America with a large
share of its consumer goods, namely China.
17 March
2005
===========================
Annex
Rumsfeld
details big military shift in new document
By
Greg Jaffe
The Wall Street Journal
11 March 2005
Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld outlines in a new, classified planning document
a vision for remaking the military to be far more engaged in heading off
threats prior to hostilities and serve a larger purpose of enhancing U.S.
influence around the world.
The
document sets out Mr. Rumsfeld's agenda for a recently begun massive
review of defense spending and strategy. Because the process is conducted
only once every four years, the review represents the Bush
administration's best chance to refashion the military into a force
capable of delivering on the ambitious security and foreign-policy goals
that President Bush has put forth since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11,
2001. It is being conducted by senior members of Mr. Rumsfeld's staff
along with senior officers from each of the armed services.
Mr.
Rumsfeld's goals, laid out in the document, mark a significant departure
from recent reviews. Deeply informed by both the terrorist attacks of
Sept. 11, 2001, and by the military's bloody struggle in Iraq, the
document emphasizes newer problems, such as battling terrorists and
insurgents, over conventional military challenges.
Mr.
Rumsfeld's approach likely will trigger major shifts in the weapons
systems that the Pentagon buys, and even more fundamental changes in the
training and deployment of U.S. troops throughout the world, said defense
officials who have played a role in crafting the document or are involved
in the review.
In the
document, Mr. Rumsfeld tells the military to focus on four "core
problems," none of them involving traditional military confrontations. The
services are told to develop forces that can: build partnerships with
failing states to defeat internal terrorist threats; defend the homeland,
including offensive strikes against terrorist groups planning attacks;
influence the choices of countries at a strategic crossroads, such as
China and Russia; and prevent the acquisition of weapons of mass
destruction by hostile states and terrorist groups.
"The
question we are asking is: How do you prevent problems from becoming
crises and crises from becoming all-out conflicts?" said one senior
defense official involved in writing the guidance.
At its
heart, the document is driven by the belief that the U.S. is engaged in a
continuous global struggle that extends far beyond specific battlegrounds,
such as Iraq and Afghanistan. The vision is for a military that is far
more proactive, focused on changing the world instead of just responding
to conflicts such as a North Korean attack on South Korea, and assuming
greater prominence in countries in which the U.S. isn't at war.
The
document comes early in the review process, which is conducted at the
behest of Congress. Each of the military services already has assembled a
large staff to craft plans for attacking the key problem areas identified
by Mr. Rumsfeld.
When
complete, the review will be sent to Congress, likely early next year.
Congress doesn't have a vote on the secretary's review, which will be used
by the administration to guide its decisions on strategy and spending over
the next several budget cycles. The review is unlikely to require any
major changes in overall defense spending, which is projected to grow
through at least 2009.
But it
is likely to trigger some nasty political battles, and potentially pose
challenges to defense contractors. The core problems outlined in Mr.
Rumsfeld's review, for example, don't seem to favor the F/A-22 jet, made
by Lockheed Martin Corp., which is the Air Force's top priority. "I think
you are likely to see the Air Force push back hard to preserve the F-22,"
said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer at the Lexington Institute
and a consultant to several of the military services. "Unfortunately, you
can't find a lot of justification for more F/A-22s in the problem sets the
services are being asked to address."
Already,
the review is prodding the services to question the need for expensive
weapons systems, like short-range fighter jets and naval destroyers and
tanks that are used primarily in conventional conflicts. "A big question
is exactly how much is enough to win the conventional fights of the
future, and where can we shift some resources to some of these less
traditional problems," said one person involved in drafting the guidance.
The Wall
Street Journal reviewed a summary of the document and spoke with several
officials who contributed to it.
Mr.
Rumsfeld has made transforming the military a priority since the Bush
administration took power. But in recent years that push took a back seat
to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Inside the Pentagon, the review is
widely seen as Mr. Rumsfeld's last big push to instill his views. Many
insiders speculate that he will leave early next year when the review is
completed; he has repeatedly dismissed all such speculation and refused to
comment on his plans.
Mr.
Rumsfeld's guidance pushes the services to rethink the way they fight
guerrilla wars and insurgencies. Instead of trying to stamp out an
insurgency with large conventional ground formations, the classified
guidance urges the military to come up with less doctrinaire solutions
that include sending in smaller teams of culturally savvy soldiers to
train and mentor indigenous forces.
The U.S.
would seek to deploy these troops far earlier in a looming conflict than
they traditionally have been to help a tottering government's armed forces
confront guerrillas before an insurgency is able to take root and build
popular support. Officials said the plan envisions many such teams
operating around the world.
That
represents a challenge for a military already stretched thin by wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan. There aren't currently enough of these specially
trained soldiers and Marines to make the strategy work.
In the
past decade, the U.S. military has shied away from helping allies battle
internal threats out of concern that U.S. forces would get mired in
endless internal conflicts. Instead, the military has focused on helping
allies ward off cross-border aggression by selling them higher-end weapon
systems.
But the
new plan envisions more active U.S. involvement, resembling recent
military aid missions to places like Niger and Chad, where the U.S. is
dispatching teams of ground troops to train local militaries in basic
counterinsurgency tactics. Future training missions, however, would likely
be conducted on a much broader scale, one defense official said.
Of the
military's services, the Marines Corps right now is moving fastest to fill
this gap and is looking at shifting some resources away from traditional
amphibious-assault missions to new units designed specifically to work
with foreign forces. To support these troops, military officials are
looking at everything from acquiring cheap aerial surveillance systems to
flying gunships that can be used in messy urban fights to come to the aid
of ground troops. One "dream capability" might be an unmanned AC-130
gunship that could circle an area at relatively low altitude until it is
needed, then swoop in to lay down a withering line of fire, said a defense
official.
The
shift is reminiscent of the situation in the early 1900s, when Marines
fought a series of small wars in Central America and were frequently
referred to as the "State Department's soldiers."
At the
same time the U.S. military re-equips itself to deal with low-tech
insurgent threats, it also is seeking to dissuade rising powers, such as
China, from challenging U.S. military dominance. Although weapons systems
designed to fight guerrillas tend to be fairly cheap and low-tech, the
review makes clear that to dissuade those countries from trying to
compete, the U.S. military must retain its dominance in key high-tech
areas, such as stealth technology, precision weaponry and manned and
unmanned surveillance systems.
Copyright
the WSJ, 2005. The complete version of this article is available in the
print edition
Reposted by
Bulatlat
BACK TO TOP ■
COMMENT
© 2004 Bulatlat
■ Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.